Archbishop of Canterbury Confirmed to Meet Pope Benedict XVI in Rome

[Companion]

From Christian Today (http://www.christiantoday.com/)

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is to meet Pope Benedict XVI during a visit to Rome later this year, Lambeth Palace confirmed yesterday.

The visit, which is expected to be in November, will mark the Archbishop's first formal visit to the Roman Catholic Church head in Rome this year, in addition to the 40th anniversary mark of a ground-breaking meeting between the then archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, and Pope Paul VI in 1966.

The two current leaders met briefly in the Vatican on the day following the Pope's election last April. It is reported that the two leaders will attend at least one service together.

Archbishop Williams said: "Forty years ago today Archbishop Ramsey met Pope Paul VI in what was a historic and groundbreaking visit to the Vatican. They exchanged fraternal greetings and gave thanks to God for the 'new atmosphere of fellowship' between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church.

He continued: "My visit this autumn is an opportunity to continue that rich tradition of visits between Canterbury and Rome, to reflect on the achievements of the last 40 years and on the future of those relations."

Britain’s senior Catholic Church leaders have openly admitted that relations between the two Churches has seemed to have reached a “plateau”. However, many are hoping that the present meeting could bring about a new ecumenical era between the Churches.

Although full unity is the goal, it is still expected that the emphasis will be put on “unity in diversity”, and for a position to be found where both Churches could unite to celebrate their differences as well as their love of Christ.

Vatican Cardinals have blamed the election of an openly homosexual man, Gene Robinson, as bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA in 2003, for bringing about an “ecumenical winter” between the Churches.

The extent of the problems caused by this event were made clear in Rome in February, when Cardinal Walter Kasper, who is the head of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, referred to the “disillusionment and stagnation” in talks with other church bodies. In particular, he expressed that the root of the problem was the issue of identity.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, reported to the Times newspaper, “It is true that we are living in an ecumenical winter. It has got even icier since the American church’s decision to consecrate Gene Robinson which goes completely against the Catholic position and the historic position of the Anglican Communion as well. Rowan’s personal contact and commitment is going to be the key thing. All we can hope for is that he keeps the fire burning.”

When Pope Benedict was first installed as the Roman Catholic head last year, it was thought by many that Anglican-Catholic ties would worsen even more due to the controversy surrounding the Anglican Communion with regards to homosexuality in the Church, as well as women bishops.

However, Pope Benedict has shown an unexpected enthusiasm for ecumenical talks with Anglican as well as Orthodox bodies, and this has raised hopes again for the future between the two Churches.

[Andy Broadley]

Um heap big pow wow

[karen freeinchristman]

Hmm... interesting! Thanks, Companion!

[Companion]

Hmm... interesting! Thanks, Companion!

YW :thumbsup:

[Chrystabelle]

From Christian Today (http://www.christiantoday.com/)
However, Pope Benedict has shown an unexpected enthusiasm for ecumenical talks with Anglican as well as Orthodox bodies, and this has raised hopes again for the future between the two Churches.

Unexpected being the operative word. I thought I read that Pope Benedict was all in favour of a smaller, more 'faithful' Roman Catholic church (i.e. faithful to the dogma).
:confused: (Just when I thought I'd escaped him too. :doh: )

[Torah613]

Paul VI was also pegged as a traditionalist before being elected Pope. That man did more to bring sweeping changes in the traditions of the church than any other Pope since Pius V.

Benedict has been hailed as a champion of tradition. However at the end of his papacy I imagine things will look pretty much the same as they did at the end of JPII's.

As for his emphasis on Ecumenism, I really don't see it. I mean he's talked a bit here and there about it with the other branches of the Church Catholic but hasn't really gotten hardcore into it.

Joe Zollars

[Companion]

Paul VI was also pegged as a traditionalist before being elected Pope. That man did more to bring sweeping changes in the traditions of the church than any other Pope since Pius V.

Benedict has been hailed as a champion of tradition. However at the end of his papacy I imagine things will look pretty much the same as they did at the end of JPII's.

As for his emphasis on Ecumenism, I really don't see it. I mean he's talked a bit here and there about it with the other branches of the Church Catholic but hasn't really gotten hardcore into it.

Joe Zollars

I agree. I get the feeling that Vatican is more interested in publicity than true christian unity. No unexpected enthusiasm or ecumenism here...just PR and image boosting. Some things never change.

[Fish and Bread]

I find that when it comes to Pope Benedict XVI, a fair number of people tend to have what is probably a fairly simplistic picture of a very complex personality and theological temperment. That's understandable, because we have a very human desire to categorize people and, frankly, though we don't capture all their intricacies, many religious leaders are genuinely simply and mostly accurately categorizeable. For example, if we said that Hans Kung is very liberal and that Bishop Fellay of the SPPX is very conservative, I don't think we'd be missing out on too many subtleties there, though certainly there are subtleties present.

Pope Benedict XVI isn't quite as simple to pigeonhole. Yes, he's *mostly* conservative, but he had a two hour meeting with Hans Kung, who's been excommunicated, reportedly without even raising the issues that caused his ecomunication. If one reads his first encyclical, it's fairly conservative, but the tone of it is very conversational and unlike the traditional Papal encyclical. Historically, such encylicals have usually used the royal "we" and made decrees and defined heresies and so forth. This encylical reads like the guy is writing a letter to a friend. Granted, the practice dates back at least as far as JPII, but here Benedict certainly isn't harkening back to pre-Vatican II days or anything like that. His books as Cardinal Ratzinger were similar in tone to the encyclical, fairly warm and done as though teaching a dear friend.

He's also not entirely conservative politically. He strongly opposed the Iraq War and seems to believe that a society collectively has an obligation to care for the poor.

When we look at the replacement he chose for himself as head of the Doctrine for the Congregation of the faith, he's (horror of horrors ;)) an American and, while somewhat conservative, is not someone known for being a Bishop Burke type either. There is a real sense that the Pope is trying to reach out to the entire church and even the scattered sheep like the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans and Protestants. I think it's partly an "Only Nixon could go to China" type of deal. Pope Benedict has enough credibility with traditionalists to get this kind of stuff done if he chooses. A more liberal Pope would certain try, but face a lot of internal dissent in the process.

The other aspect of this is that it's likely trying calm the fears of liberal Roman Catholics and so forth and get them behind them before he attempt s few reforms. I can see him making some revisions to the mass and try to encourage more Latin and chant and more traditional devotions. I don't think they'll be any drastic theological movement, though. From what I've read, Cardinal Ratzinger seemed mostly satisfied with the actual theology. It's more a question in his mind, I think, of cleaning up the liturgy and the semininaries and bringing everyone in line -- not a fundamental chance of direction, just making sure everyone is with the program and not off doing their own thing. After Vatican II, a lot of liberties were taken at the local level in various places and that's going to be reigned in. I think you'll see the ruberics followed a lot more closely and fewer homilies from parish pulpits that contradict RCC theology, that sort of thing.

[Andy Broadley]

I agree. I get the feeling that Vatican is more interested in publicity than true christian unity. No unexpected enthusiasm or ecumenism here...just PR and image boosting. Some things never change.

No way.

Papa Ratzi is cool.:)

[Companion]

Fish and Bread, that's a fair presentation and well grounded. However, what concerns me is neither his pastoral qualities or his political/theological inclinations. What I'm concerned about is his view of other Christian bodies. He still doesn't acknowledge their catholicity - in means of being truly and fully canonical and orthodox - while from the very first day in office he's done everything possible to emphasize the power/authority of the Bishop of Rome. He even removed the title 'Patriarch of the West' from his signature, just to show who's the 'boss' of the worldwide church.

I doubt not his heart or good intentions. I only believe he isn't the right person when it comes to issues like unity, especially if we compare him to JPII. His own theology and exclusiveness has trapped him.

[Chrystabelle]

No way.
Papa Ratzi is cool.:)

How do you know? :scratch:

[gtsecc]

I agree. I get the feeling that Vatican is more interested in publicity than true christian unity. No unexpected enthusiasm or ecumenism here...just PR and image boosting. Some things never change.
I believe they are absolutely sincere.
They see a call from Christ to be unified.

[Fish and Bread]

Fish and Bread, that's a fair presentation and well grounded. However, what concerns me is neither his pastoral qualities or his political/theological inclinations. What I'm concerned about is his view of other Christian bodies. He still doesn't acknowledge their catholicity - in means of being truly and fully canonical and orthodox

Many Anglo-Catholics are extremely well-grounded in the writings of the early Church Fathers. In fact, because Anglo-Catholicism is in many cases a chosen affiliation that comes about as the result of much research and Roman Catholicism is often part of an ethno-cultural identity for people (i.e. I'm "Irish or Italian, so I'm Roman Catholic"), Anglo-Catholic lay people may be on average even better grounded in the writings of the early Church Fathers.

However, what I think a lot of folks don't really think about in that is that Roman Catholicism has about a thousand years of history after the 7th ecumenical council. In fact, if we go based on the number of ecumenical councils alone, the "early church" councils only comprises 7 out of 21 RCC ecumenical councils. The early church was especially foundational, but further doctrines and dogmas were refined and clarified in the intervening years. 2/3 of councillar pronouncements in Roman Catholicism were made after the Great Schism and I'd imagine the great majority of RCC theologians and Saints came after that point as well, if I don't miss my guess.

So, the church that many Anglo-Catholics want to harken back to is in fact an infant form of the teenage Roman Catholic Church, from the perspective of a Roman Catholic. The infant was wonderful and beautiful, but very different from a teenager -- if it were human, things like speech, reading and writing, motor cordination, etc. would set them apart. I think that results in an ecumenical difficulty in the sense that Anglicans are saying "Go back here to when we were more innocent and pure" and Roman Catholics are saying "Why would we undo 1,000 years of progress that the Holy Spirit has led us to and climb back into the crib?". It's a basic difference in perspective.

A lot of developments in theology have been made since ecumenical council #7. Pope Benedict XVI really *can't* acknowledge the full catholicity of Anglicans because of some of these developments. There's a universal faith and a universal order inherent in Roman Catholic notions of Catholicity and it's a developmental one, in the sense that someone can be a Catholic holding certain views in one time period and then a heretic holding them in another. For example, pre-Nicea I council, Arians were wrong, but part of the church. Post Nicea I, anyone who remained an Arian was a heretic, because they denied dogmas of the faith that had been formally defined. The same holds true for things that happened in ecumenical councils 8-21, from the Roman Catholic perspective, and for dogmas formally defined by the Pope..

At the same time, many Anglicans are developing their faith past the seventh ecumenical council in non-contradictionary ways to what came before, but in different ways than Roman Catholicism. For example, women priests. It poses a big problem I think to Popes when they say "Women not only shouldn't be priests but it's impossible to make a woman a priest because that isn't the order God created and those women can under no circumstances consecrate the body and blood." and meanwhile Anglicans go ordaining a bunch of woman priests.

So, I think it's important for folks to try to keep in mind that there's only so much an orthodox Roman Catholic Pope can do ecumenically and still be true to his faith. He can offer to waive matters of discipline like celibate priesthoods and liturgical rites for potential churches that want to reunify. He can offer to let people keep their non-doctrinal traditions and unique ways of phrasing certain concepts that don't contradict the RCC faith. He might even go back and clarify that some things at issue were just speculation and not part of the faith. What he is hamstrung from doing, though, is changing dogmas and quasi-dogmas the faith. He can't say there's no Papal Infallibility or Immaculate Conception, or that the Church of Christ in it's fullest form isn't the Roman Catholic Church. Even what the Vatican II council said, that elements of the Church exist outside of her in some respects, is probably going right up to the line to the furthest extent they can go without contradicting the Council of Trent and such. If the Vatican one days says the RCC and everyone else are all equally the Church, or equal parts of the Church, they cease being Catholic by their own definitions.

I doubt not his heart or good intentions. I only believe he isn't the right person when it comes to issues like unity, especially if we compare him to JPII. His own theology and exclusiveness has trapped him.

I'd have to study the issue more closely, but I think upon close examination one might find that John-Paul II and Benedict XVI are nearly identical theologically. The difference comes in terms of how the theology is presented and pastoral and liturgical discipline. John-Paul II isn't considered as much of an archconservative because he did things like kiss a Koran and was known as such a warm figure. Cardinal Ratzinger, meanwhile, is German. :) I think it's a personality thing, essentially. But I should note here that Cardinal Ratzinger (and now Pope Benedict XVI) I think get a bad rap to a certain extent personality wise-- if one reads the books he wrote, one I think gets the sense of a very warm and caring person, in his own way, just one that many be a less apt diplomatic than JPII.

[Companion]

While I have many objections to your post, I respect your opinion and I'm looking forward to discuss the above mentioned issues one by one as new threads come up. It might take volumes from both sides if we try to analyze everything here and now. But of course, a very interesting presentation. Thank you Fish and Bread :)

[Chrystabelle]

The early church was especially foundational, but further doctrines and dogmas were refined and clarified in the intervening years. 2/3 of councillar pronouncements in Roman Catholicism were made after the Great Schism and I'd imagine the great majority of RCC theologians and Saints came after that point as well, if I don't miss my guess.

Does this mean that the Anglican church is a purer church in that it is more similar to the first christian church, founded by Jesus?


So, the church that many Anglo-Catholics want to harken back to is in fact an infant form of the teenage Roman Catholic Church, from the perspective of a Roman Catholic. The infant was wonderful and beautiful, but very different from a teenager -- if it were human, things like speech, reading and writing, motor cordination, etc. would set them apart. I think that results in an ecumenical difficulty in the sense that Anglicans are saying "Go back here to when we were more innocent and pure" and Roman Catholics are saying "Why would we undo 1,000 years of progress that the Holy Spirit has led us to and climb back into the crib?". It's a basic difference in perspective.

Does this mean that Christ's teachings and those of the apostles were infantile? Why weren't they enough?


At the same time, many Anglicans are developing their faith past the seventh ecumenical council in non-contradictionary ways to what came before, but in different ways than Roman Catholicism. For example, women priests. It poses a big problem I think to Popes when they say "Women not only shouldn't be priests but it's impossible to make a woman a priest because that isn't the order God created and those women can under no circumstances consecrate the body and blood." and meanwhile Anglicans go ordaining a bunch of woman priests.

Is that because a woman's place is in the home, breeding and baking? In that case, is not every man's place also as head of the family and provider for his children? That is the natural order.


I'd have to study the issue more closely, but I think upon close examination one might find that John-Paul II and Benedict XVI are nearly identical theologically. The difference comes in terms of how the theology is presented and pastoral and liturgical discipline.

Did you know that in his final years, the last Pope John-Paul II had all his sermons and teachings written for him by Cardinal Ratzinger?


Did you also know that the Roman Catholic church is evolving to such an extent that they are now claiming that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and, therefore, she did not 'give birth' in the normal sense of the word. The claim is that some Archangels came to her and handed Jesus to her.

[Companion]

I believe they are absolutely sincere.
They see a call from Christ to be unified.

Then I hope to be wrong :)

[angloluthcath]

the early church also had no gentile priests,how dare we go against the early church by consecrating gentiles in positions of authority! alc

[Companion]

the early church also had no gentile priests,how dare we go against the early church by consecrating gentiles in positions of authority! alc

Neither slaves as well. :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Does this mean that the Anglican church is a purer church in that it is more similar to the first christian church, founded by Jesus?

Our system of government is closer than Rome in that the power is vested equally with the Bishops.

Our system of government is further than Rome in that we don't do what our Bishops tell us.

Did you also know that the Roman Catholic church is evolving to such an extent that they are now claiming that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus

Anglicans ( at least Anglicans who has read some history) and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox hold to this also.
That she wasn't a virgin after the Birth is a new teaching that comes sometime in the last 500 years in the protestant churches.

The claim is that some Archangels came to her and handed Jesus to her.

I think that He was born "normally" is an unchangeable piece of Dogma. I can't imagine that the Church would want to change this or would change it or even could. It sounds more like a Jack Chick conspiracy theory about Roman Catholics than an actual teaching. You should get your self a Catechism so you can know which are the real teachings of Rome.

[Chrystabelle]

I think that He was born "normally" is an unchangeable piece of Dogma. I can't imagine that the Church would want to change this or would change it or even could. It sounds more like a Jack Chick conspiracy theory about Roman Catholics than an actual teaching. You should get your self a Catechism so you can know which are the real teachings of Rome.

Then how is it that I had to remove my children from catechism classes because they were being shown a Roman Catholic video depicting the virgin birth in which two Archangel's were spiritually delivering Jesus from the top of Mary's tummy and handing him to her?

[Fish and Bread]

I want to begin by noting that what I was trying to do with my most recent post was not to present my own theological treatise, but rather to convey the thoughts of many of those groups, most especially Roman Catholicism, in a relateable way that might shed light on the ecumenical efforts under way and a perceived lack of progress and the causes thereof. It should not necessarily be taken as indicative of my being in full agreement with these positions -- I question many of them.

Does this mean that the Anglican church is a purer church in that it is more similar to the first christian church, founded by Jesus?

Many Anglo-Catholics hold the position that they hold more closely to the teachings of the Apostles, the early Church Fathers, and the ecumenical councils and continue that tradition more authentically than the Roman Catholic Church, yes.

Does this mean that Christ's teachings and those of the apostles were infantile? Why weren't they enough?

I think the Roman Catholic position is that doctrine can develop if it is not in contradiction to what proceded it and rather acts as a clarification or elaboration on the faith as delivered, under certain circumstances, and can also be bound and loosed to the modern era in the forming of teachings on issues likes abortion that were not quite the controversies they are today in Apostolic times. In this way, the thinking goes, the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth, as the scriptures promise. Thus, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are the foundation or cornerstone of the full Catholic faith, from that perspective, and can not be contradicted by subsequent teaching, but are not in themselves the fullness of it. Jesus only taught for three years and the Apostles had human lifetimes. The full glory of God is so great that it can not be fully explained even in a thousand lifetimes. I simply present what I perceive to be the Roman Catholic position here.

Is that because a woman's place is in the home, breeding and baking? In that case, is not every man's place also as head of the family and provider for his children? That is the natural order.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say the Roman Catholic Church teaches that, because for quite a long time, women have served as celibate nuns and teachers. Also it has asked many men to be celibate priests and monks and thus the head of no household. So, clearly, the RCC does not believe that every woman is called to marriage and has never held that. And I don't think the Vatican has objected to women in the workplace or stay-at-home dads lately.

With that said, I do think that many Roman Catholic teachings may sometimes fail to make accomodations for individual circumstances that are outside of the average. For example, couples who are finacially or physically incapable of supporting large numbers of children and yet wish to have an active sex life probably fall into that category (Given the RCC prohibition on birth control). Another example might be teachings against any form of premaritial sexual expression, include masterbation, which is not a teaching everyone is going to be able to hold to without severe psychological trama, given the average age of marriage. People who at the same time preach that will also say "Wait to marry until you're older and wiser, or until you have your fiancial house in order". There seems to be a lack of seperation between idealistic notions of God's order and the reality of the present world, in some respects. I love idealism, but one can not use idealistic notions torn apart from practicality and grounding in the reality of people's day to day existence (including the desires of the flesh and the imperfection of people's lives due to both external and internal factors) and then use that to make rules on so many aspects of people's lives without generating some adverse consequences.

Did you know that in his final years, the last Pope John-Paul II had all his sermons and teachings written for him by Cardinal Ratzinger?

I am aware that John-Paul II is said to have been incapable of doing some of that type of things on his own in his later years to the extent noramlly required of a Pope due to his physical health and that he consequentially asked Cardinal Ratzinger and other trusted members of the curia to write some things for him, which he signed off on or read aloud. To what extent this was done, I'm not sure. It might have been all of it, or it may have simply been a portion.

Did you also know that the Roman Catholic church is evolving to such an extent that they are now claiming that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and, therefore, she did not 'give birth' in the normal sense of the word. The claim is that some Archangels came to her and handed Jesus to her.

Mary's perpetual virginity has been a long-time claim of the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Anglo-Catholics; but my impression has been that all still believe that Jesus passed through the birth control and was delivered as a normal baby would be. The teaching from those groups seems to just be that she did not have sex before or after. Can you provide a citation for the idea that Roman Catholics believe that Jesus was handed to Mary by angels and not delivered?

[Fish and Bread]

Then how is it that I had to remove my children from catechism classes because they were being shown a Roman Catholic video depicting the virgin birth in which two Archangel's were spiritually delivering Jesus from the top of Mary's tummy and handing him to her?

Did you see the video yourself or are you relying on your children's descriptions thereof? I saw something on EWTN one time where angels were present at the birth of Jesus and helped deliver him, but they didn't remove him from the top of Mary's stomach. Is it possible that that program or a variation of it might have been shown and the details got confused by the children?

The reason I am questioning this so intently is not a kneejerk defense of Roman Catholicism, but because a teaching that Jesus didn't come through the birth canal is so clearly contrary to Christianity as it's always been believed that I can't picture any of my Roman Catholic friends or relatives swallowing it. I can't picture Pope Benedict swallowing it either. It's just not a reasonable extrapolation from the scriptures and the tradition of the church.

[Epiphanygirl]

Does this mean that the Anglican church is a purer church in that it is more similar to the first christian church, founded by Jesus?



Does this mean that Christ's teachings and those of the apostles were infantile? Why weren't they enough?



Is that because a woman's place is in the home, breeding and baking? In that case, is not every man's place also as head of the family and provider for his children? That is the natural order.



Did you know that in his final years, the last Pope John-Paul II had all his sermons and teachings written for him by Cardinal Ratzinger?


Did you also know that the Roman Catholic church is evolving to such an extent that they are now claiming that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and, therefore, she did not 'give birth' in the normal sense of the word. The claim is that some Archangels came to her and handed Jesus to her.The Church has ALWAYS stated that she remained a virgin. I think you are misrepresenting the facts here. I see that you stated below about a video in a catechism class....how old are your kids? should they have depicted a real birth.... I don't know what video this is, if it is even sanctioned by the Church, but please do not misrepresent what we teach or believe.

[gtsecc]

Then how is it that I had to remove my children from catechism classes because they were being shown a Roman Catholic video depicting the virgin birth in which two Archangel's were spiritually delivering Jesus from the top of Mary's tummy and handing him to her?

I think it is more likly that it was a children's film, and they deemed it inappropriate to show vaginal birth, rather than they were teaching some sort fo new dogma. I think you know that too, but have a beef with the Roman Catholic Church and have distorted your experience to make a point. Churches of all donmination have hurt people. I won't make light of that possibly having happened to you.

[Chrystabelle]

Yes I did see the video myself. My sister-in-law was teaching the catechism classes in our local Roman Catholic church and she showed me the video after my children told me about it. I told her, in no uncertain terms, that I did not agree with it.

Her reply was: "Well, you obviously do not know your religion, then."

All through the video the narrator was saying that Mary remained a virgin, before, during and after the birth. He was also saying that the angels came and presented Jesus to Mary.

Yes, it probably was an EWTN video and I think that someone should take a closer look at that video and listen to what the narrator was suggesting. (The video was NOT a cartoon. It had real people in it.)

I resent people suggesting that I am making false claims because I have a grudge against the church.

Good-bye.
I think it is more likly that it was a children's film, and they deemed it inappropriate to show vaginal birth, rather than they were teaching some sort fo new dogma. I think you know that too, but have a beef with the Roman Catholic Church and have distorted your experience to make a point. Churches of all donmination have hurt people. I won't make light of that possibly having happened to you.

[gtsecc]

All through the video the narrator was saying that Mary remained a virgin, before, during and after the birth.


But that is true.

The detail about virginal Birth is also undisputed, so this was clearly something done to not show private parts to children, not to change dogma. This is in fact so clear, your refusal to present it as such makes people naturally wonder about your motivation.

[gtsecc]

Good-bye.
You are leaving this thread over a very small point, but you want us to believe it took a huge deal to make you leave the Church?!?! hmmmm...

[Chrystabelle]

You are leaving this thread over a very small point, but you want us to believe it took a huge deal to make you leave the Church?!?! hmmmm...

I really could not care less what you believe. I will not remain in a place where people are calling me a liar. My sister-in-law told me, quite blatantly, that I did not know my faith, properly, because Mary did not give birth through her birth canal because she was virgo intacta.

My reasons for leaving the RC church were similar to my reasons for leaving this section of the forum and the catholic section of the forum. Here, I have been called a liar and in the RC section it was suggested that I was working for satan. These are things which I have been accused of in the past at the hands of my abusive RC family.

I will NOT tolerate it. Good-bye.

[gtsecc]

If one person tells you you have a tail, laugh it off.
If two people tell you, look behind you.
The main teaching of ALL of Christianity, except for some splinter groups, is that Mary gave birth vaginally, and yet remained a virgin. I figure if you are going to believe Jesus was both fully man, and fully God, you aren't really going to worry too much about this point.

[Inside Edge]

My sister-in-law told me, quite blatantly, that I did not know my faith, properly, because Mary did not give birth through her birth canal because she was virgo intacta.
Why not just ask a priest to clarify? Maybe your sister in law is incorrect.

[Chrystabelle]

http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Itemid=80 (http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Itemid=80)

May I suggest that you get your facts right BEFORE you criticize me.

[pmcleanj]

http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Itemid=80 (http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Itemid=80)

May I suggest that you get your facts right BEFORE you criticize me.
I have heard this kind of thing before. I don't believe it's a mainstream belief. I'm told that Roman Catholics have dogma, which they must believe in order to be a good Roman Catholic, and other revelations that they may optionally accept. I'm hoping that no-one is actually required to believe this farfetched speculation.

However, I would go on to say, that permitting this kind of inappropriate excess is one of the errors of the papacy that most Anglicans would reject. Whether in year 206 or 2006, I would hope that pious Christian men would have better taste than to subject the Blessed Virgin to public discourse regarding the probable outcome of her gynocological examination!

Yes, there were writers among the early Church who thought that the less womanly Mary was, the less labourious and carnal the Lord's birth, the more holy and miraculous He could be shown to be. I imagine that, had they thought of it, they would have argued that the dung in His stable didn't stink, either.

I don't concur, that these speculations were ever considered by the Church to be essential doctrine. I'd argue, myself, that they are fundamentally erroneous speculations, born of the stubborn allure of gnosticism. By robbing Mary of her womanhood, and Jesus of the carnality of his birth, these arguments make him less wholy man, without making Him any more wholy God.

Fortumately, no Anglican is required to consent to this flight of fancy. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man." Anglicans can choose to believe such claims assuming that they can convince themselves that the claims don't outright contradict scripture -- although, Scripture does tell us Christ was "born" of a Virgin, and Mary gave sacrifice for him in the temple as a "male that openeth the womb" -- but they can't foist the belief onto others.

Anglicans don't -- thank goodness! -- have dogma in the Roman Catholic sense. Doctrine, which is the "right thought" of the community of believers, is maintained in the overall consensus of the church. In a dogmatic church, doctrine is codified by a central hierarchy and mandated downward through that hierarchy. Clerical hierarchicalism is one of the errors we cast out during the reformation. But, since we don't have dogma, we must repeatedly consider and discuss these things, so that the Church's consensus can be maintained. Of course, we have members who wish that we did have dogma, precisely so that details and speculation could be mandated from on high -- always assuming that the powers "on high" would agree with them. In the absence of Anglican dogma, some members find other authorities to turn to to support their contentious. But stridently insisting that something "is so true!" isn't a good consensus-building technique, and no-one should be deceived by it.

[Companion]

There is no doubt at all that the Roman Catholic Church demands blind obedience to the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. Chrystabelle is right about it, while every open minded scholar would agree it's a gnostic teaching which can't stand without philosophical or word tricks.

As Anglicans, we are not bound to believe it. If some wish to hold on it as pious opinion then it's fine......maybe. However, it's not an article of faith, much more a condition of salvation.

This thread was about the ABC meeting the Pope but we have all gone too far away. All contributions are excellent, I really want to thank you all, but now I would kindly request a moderator to close it.

[Wiffey]

An aside: I personally think there is WAY too much focus on whether or not the BVM's hymen remained intact during birth. Even if it totally tore, would that make her any less virginal? Isn't virginity about not having sex? If so, why would the tearing of a hymen in an asexual context have any bearing?

I believe that Mary was a virgin. Meaning that she did not have sex before or during her pregnancy. So if she had a normal hymen and it got shredded by Jesus' cranium during the process of birth, it doesn't make the BVM one iota less a virgin. She would just be a virgin sans hymen...which happens. A virgin is a virgin until the act of intercourse occurs, irregardless of the status of her hymen.

FWIW, there are plenty of women who have never had sex but have damaged hymens from athletics, etc. When I was growing up it was an urban legend that if you used Tampax it would "ruin" your virginity...even if no boy had been within 10 feet of you. Very silly! Such fuss over a little membrane! There are also women who have had sex but still have part of their hymen. They are not "partial virgins". There are women from very strict societies who have surgery to restore their hymens so they can have the all important bloody sheet after they marry (and escape being killed by their families for premarital indiscretions)...they are not virgins.

IMO, the hymen of the BVM and its survival (or lack of survival) during labor has zero bearing on the Faith.

[Companion]

:thumbsup: :amen:

[pmcleanj]

:cool: